Walt wrote:
> It is also true that science (nowadays -- not so much in the past) is
> completely
> incapable of anything other than 100% naturalism.
Can you give an example of in the past when science employed something other
than 100% naturalism? The only thing I know of is that early scientists did
not have problems discussing God in their reporting of their science --
specifically in the conclusions they drew, and maybe in developing the
hypotheses. But I'd be very curious if you had any info on examples where
early scientists actually somehow used "other than" naturalism. I'm not even
sure how that would work.
If God ever did act
> in time or
> space, today's science would have to deny it no matter what the
I'm not sure why we all have so much difficulty with this. To me, I recently
came to a "revelation" that I'd never heard anyone mention before. We all
accept that Jesus was 100% God (supernatural) and 100% human (natural). Why
then, do we have any trouble accepting the idea that what science reveals
about the unfoldings of the universe (creation, history, even some miracles)
may have both a 100% natural explanation simultaneously with a 100%
supernatural hand of God involved. Its a paradox and a mystery, but no more
difficult to grasp than the dual nature of Jesus.
An example from the Bible is how the "wind" separated the Red Sea for Moses
and the Israelites passage through. God's literal hand did not come down for
all to see. He definitely was involved, but so was the wind. And that itself
allowed room for faith to work (or not work, as it was for many of the
Israelites) to believe the miracle or deny it. Many people wonder how the
Israelites could lose faith SO quick after such a big miracle, but it makes
perfect sense to me because all they saw was the wind parting the sea, they
went through, the enemies were all killed, and WOW that was amazing, but
then they didn't really see God's involvement, and Gosh now they think they
are going to starve in the desert!
> Naturalism refuses to accept that any description other than
> functions of x, y, z,
> and t are allowable --
I don't know that is entirely correct. If scientists discovered a dimension
outside x,y,z, and t (time I'm presuming?) that had evidence for it, they
would accept it. I don't have any doubt that if ID had any actual evidence
it would (or will) eventually make its way into scientific journals. If its
believers believe in it enough, and try normal means of getting their
science accepted (instead of waylaying people by using institutions and
media and books and talks and radio shows). The only scientists that use the
media to introduce their ideas (BEFORE peer review publication, that is) are
those like the cold fusion and alchemy folks who in the end are frauds. If
ID has any evidence, let them go the real peer review route. If indeed there
is a "conspiracy" against it, and it is a real phenomenon, then they should
be patient, surely God will come through in the end!
> In my view, "naturalism" is in fact a religion,. It is the religious
> belief, held by
It can be, but its is not in and of itself.
I find it quite odd and interesting that adamant atheists and certain
Christians fall into the same category of believing that evolution and God
are mutually exclusive! Hmm....
My best,
Wendee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 23:05:27 EDT